|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Jon writes: And how do rape victims fit into a discussion about consenting adults? You're right, "consenting" may actually be the wrong word.I just meant to illustrate the idea of people who are on equal terms in ways of social status... recognized as adults who are capable of making their own decisions and should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. I think there is a word for such a description, it simply escapes me. To me, "consenting adults" is a term that gets this point across, though. But, yeah, the term "consenting" can be confusing in the context I'm using it. But an un-clear argument is not the same thing as moving-the-goal-posts. Un-clear arguments are unavoidable. You do not think the same way I do, or anyone else in the world. There will be some things we think of in the same way, and others that will be very different. We just have to deal with clarifications as they come up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It really is, though. When somebody sees a slave he may think that he wouldn't want to be a slave; he might even want to help relieve the slave's suffering. But it isn't until other people have the same thoughts and feelings that he thinks of dealing with the overall problem instead of the individual symptoms. It's not that some "society" makes up laws and standards and a consensus that then trickles down to the individuals in the population who then accept it. Group problems need group solutions. One individual can free one slave but only society can end slavery.
Stile writes:
It's not being decided by the ice cream. The ice cream is only influencing the decision. ...it's all decided by the person being affected by the action (ice-cream). Edited by ringo, : spelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
We're missing something here. Talking past each other somehow and I'm unable to identify it.
ringo writes: Group problems need group solutions. One individual can free one slave but only society can end slavery. Again, I totally agree with your conclusion.
But it isn't until other people have the same thoughts and feelings that he thinks of dealing with the overall problem instead of the individual symptoms. Which is what I'm saying... a bunch of individuals get together to affect all of society... it all starts with the individuals.Where do you say it starts? It's not being decided by the ice cream. The ice cream is only influencing the decision. Absolutely agreed.Who ever mentioned that ice cream is making any decisions? I think you intend for this to be an analogy of my argument, but I don't see what you're equating ice-cream to. Perhaps you could explain my argument, then your ice-cream analogy, and then state which parts in my argument match up with ice-cream in your analogy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Phat writes: I did emphasize to Stile, however, that evil was carried by and through humans. You did, and I replied to you in Message 257. Basically, my response is: If you define evil as something only humans are capable of, then I find it trivially correct to say that God cannot possibly be evil... being not-human. However, since all the evidence we have suggests that evil is not restricted to humans but merely "intelligence," I do not find your definition of evil overly convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I just meant to illustrate the idea of people who are on equal terms in ways of social status... recognized as adults who are capable of making their own decisions and should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The whole idea of being responsible involves someone else (in the rape examples: society) determining right/wrong outside of the parties immediately affected. And that's the sensible way for things to work. I get that you are trying to solve a difficult problem, but that doesn't mean that you can throw out common sense.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Jon writes: The whole idea of being responsible involves someone else (in the rape examples: society) determining right/wrong outside of the parties immediately affected. And that's the sensible way for things to work. I get that you are trying to solve a difficult problem, but that doesn't mean that you can throw out common sense. I think you don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about determining jail time and the court system and social consequences like that. ringo just asked a partially-relevant question about such things and I attempted to answer it, that's all. I'm simply talking about a moral system where a person can have a definition for good/bad without trusting some absolute opinion that's wrong sometimes. Like the 10 commandments are a decent moral system.But they run into trouble with a lot of specific situations. For example: Honor thy Mother and Father. It's useless (due to the existence of abusive parents) unless you attach a whole bunch of conditions to it that boil down to "Honor thy Mother and Father if they deserved to be honored..." Yeah, well, duh. That's the problem with absolute moral statements, there's always situations where they're just wrong.Some are obvious like the mother/father thing above. Some are less obvious like "Thou shalt not kill." But still, there are situations where killing is the right thing to do. Say, a person living-in-horrible-pain who has no chance of recovery and just wants to die. Keeping them alive is evil. Not-keeping-them-alive (and waiting for them to die naturally) is better, but still not good. Killing them in a swifter, less-painful way is merciful, and best. My point is that a moral system basing good/bad on an individual's reaction to whatever-action-is-affecting-them is the best I've ever heard of. That doesn't throw out common sense, that uses common sense.If you care about helping other people... then you want to find out what those specific people like and dislike. Who better to tell you what they like/dislike to happen to them then those very people themselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You're talking around the objections to your position. As you did earlier when I tried engaging you in discussion.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Jon writes: You're talking around the objections to your position. As you did earlier when I tried engaging you in discussion. If you don't feel like something was adequately resolved, feel free to add some clarification to move the discussion forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I thought you said it started with the victims, which is nonsense. As I have said, the victims have nothing to do with it. It's only the observers' perception of the problem that leads to a solution.
Which is what I'm saying... a bunch of individuals get together to affect all of society... it all starts with the individuals.Where do you say it starts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: I thought you said it started with the victims, which is nonsense. As I have said, the victims have nothing to do with it. Without a victim, there's nothing to observe. What does an observer have to do with anything if there's nothing to observe in the first place?"Nothing to do with it" couldn't be further from the truth. It's only the observers' perception of the problem that leads to a solution. This is an important step, yes. But without a victim in the first place... an observer is useless, an observer's perception of what? Of someone who's affected by an action. Not necessarily a victim all the time (depending on the action and reaction), but the "victim" in the context of our discussion. Once we have a victim, we have something to observe.Once there's an observation, there's something to judge. How do we judge it? (Observer's perception of the problem). We could use many different systems: -absolute moral code (like the 10 Commandments)-society makes the rules (say... whatever the law says or popular opinion or something like that) -victim decides good/bad (what I'm advocating) -something else entirely My main point isn't about the process that we seem to be getting into. My main point is that "the best system I've heard of" so far for deciding if the action was good/bad is that during the observer's judgment call... the best thing to do is to listen to what the victim has to say. If the victim isn't a victim at all, and they actually like what's happening... why go through the rest of the process? If the victim is being hurt, then it would be good to try to make an attempt to stop such a thing. Perhaps immediately and physically. Perhaps eventually by using the system of government we have today, perhaps both or something else even... that's another judgment call that has less to do with the moral decision of deciding if it's good/bad in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It's the observer that has the empathy. It's the observer that acts on his empathy to solve a perceived problem. What does an observer have to do with anything if there's nothing to observe in the first place? A perceived problem. Only the observer's perception is relevant. There doesn't have to be an actual problem. Hence, the problem itself is irrelevant. There are all kinds of perceived problems with perceived victims and all kinds of busybodies trying to solve problems for "victims" who don't perceive the problem.
Stile writes:
And my main point is that that system is no good because the "victim" has a vested interest. We have people claiming to be victims and we have observers thinking people are victims when the "victims" don't think they are. A better system than yours is detached objective observation in which the victim's viewpoint may be taken into account but isn't given any special weight.
My main point is that "the best system I've heard of" so far for deciding if the action was good/bad is that during the observer's judgment call... the best thing to do is to listen to what the victim has to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: And my main point is that that system is no good because the "victim" has a vested interest. We have people claiming to be victims and we have observers thinking people are victims when the "victims" don't think they are. A better system than yours is detached objective observation in which the victim's viewpoint may be taken into account but isn't given any special weight. What is an "objective observation" in terms of morality?Aren't you talking about the "objective observation" that a person doesn't want to be a slave? Isn't that based on the subjective feelings of the person who "doesn't want" to be a slave? If so... then we're talking about the same thing. If not... then I have no idea what you're actually "observing." Why do you think the victim's bias is an issue?Why shouldn't the victim decide if they want something done to them or not? How do you get an objective observation on a subjective idea such as morality? Can you explain how this is possible? Here's a simple example: Blind man walks up to a closed door.Should you open it for him or not? My way:If the blind man wants you to open it for him (likely, but not 100% positive) then you should. If you blind man doesn't want you to open it for him (possible, just unlikely) then you shouldn't. Why should an outside observer get to decide? What "objective" factor would make the decision? Or, let's say this: I pay for a friends coffee.My friend is happy to get a free coffee. My system: This was a good thing because it made my friend happy.Objective reason why this is a good thing: ??? Seriously. What is the objective reason that makes buying a coffee for my friend a good thing that doesn't rely on my friend's feelings about receiving the coffee?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No. The people who opposed slavery were not the ones who observed it directly - i.e. the Southerners. They were people who heard about it from a guy who heard about it from a guy. In that case, hearsay was more objective. The Southerners subjectively put the thought that they wouldn't want to be slaves behind the thought that they didn't want to pick their own cotton.
Aren't you talking about the "objective observation" that a person doesn't want to be a slave? Stile writes:
I'm a victim of the gas company; they make me pay for heat even though I need it to survive. So why shouldn't I decide if the gas company should be punished? Because that would be Bizarro World.
Why shouldn't the victim decide if they want something done to them or not? Stile writes:
Objectivity is a group endeavour.
Seriously. What is the objective reason that makes buying a coffee for my friend a good thing that doesn't rely on my friend's feelings about receiving the coffee?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: I'm a victim of the gas company; they make me pay for heat even though I need it to survive. So why shouldn't I decide if the gas company should be punished? Because that would be Bizarro World. I've said many times that my system says that the people affected by the actions get to decide if it's good or bad. I never said anything about deciding punishment. That has to deal with justification for the action and I've stated many times that this is a separate issue.I've also agreed with you that justification is more of a social issue as opposed to an individual one. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not the gas company making you pay for heat is good or bad.Which is what I'm talking about. Again, what would your detached, objective observer say about paying for gas being good or bad?Objectively, how much should someone pay for their gas before they get upset? How come you always say your method is better, but can never actually say how or why it's better in any specific situation? In my system, making you pay for heat you need to survive is a bad thing to you if you're getting upset about it. Why wouldn't it be? Who says life is full of good things for everyone at all times?The punishment to the gas company, however, isn't something you get to decide (immediately, and on your own, anyway...). And I've never advocated that you should get to decide such a thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Stile writes: Seriously. What is the objective reason that makes buying a coffee for my friend a good thing that doesn't rely on my friend's feelings about receiving the coffee? Objectivity is a group endeavour. Yes, I know what the word objective means.And I know that what you're talking about gets down to the "objective people" agreeing on their ability to judge how my friend subjectively feels about getting free coffee. You just seem to be constantly avoiding getting down to that level, though. Unable to answer questions. Always avoiding topics. So, again: What is the objective, "group endeavor" reason that makes buying a coffee for my friend a good thing that doesn't rely on my friend's feelings about receiving the coffee?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024